His music is majorly banal.
His music is majorly banal.
Great question. I do generally like his music, but I have read critics treat his early music likes its some of the best rock and roll ever made. And innovative. I never understood that.
The Ohio State University wrote:
His music is majorly banal.
Because every music critic on earth looks like Elvis Costello.
His music was very clever and fresh through his first three albums. Why they pretend his attempts to be a suave crooner are any good, I have no idea.
why do white people like wayne brady so much?
Because he makes Brian gumbel look like Malcom x.
chapelle wrote:
why do white people like wayne brady so much?
What critics are you talking about? I think everything up to Imperial Bedroom was some of the best rock every made, after that, dunno. I think these critics have it about right:
http://www.allmusic.com/artist/elvis-costello-p3968/discography
On those major albums, I was a devoted fan. His earliest concerts were incredible, until he fell in love with his own voice and decided he could go it alone with an acoustic guitar. I have seen him about 8 times live, at least 3 of those concerts were disasters.
I put him in the Sting category, that is, they both are in love with themselves and their own voices which have great character but do not stand on their own. Both feel their genius transcends any style of music and ignorant people eat it up and will go sit through 2 hrs of the Boston Pops (nothing wrong with the Boston Pops) if accompanied by Sting, when they would all rather see the Police jump on stage and rock it. By contrast, Paul Simon has enhanced his own beautiful music by learning and adding sounds and rythyms of other music forms over the years while staying true to his roots.
Blizzardo wrote:
I think everything up to Imperial Bedroom was some of the best rock every made, after that, dunno.
Agree completely. His early work is absolutely brilliant. He was a fabulous song-writer and the energy/smarts of his work up through Imperial Bedroom is just over the top. I saw him at least once in those early years and was blown away. Have also seen him in the last 15 years and very much enjoyed the concerts, but the music now is very different from those early years.
Second this opinion.
He is creative on his own, without a bunch of remix jockeys and shill producers insisting on equipment that will produce a "warm" sound, etc.
Everything coming out today is the result of careful planning. No b-sides, no open mike "accidents", etc. Far too deliberate to be described as, "music".
Yeah the line about the music critics loving him because he looked like them is attributed to David Lee Roth. Reminds me of when Musician magazine named The Replacements as the last best American band of the 1980's and John Bon Jovi said "How can they be the best if I never heard of them?"
I bought an Elvis Costello album, "Armed Forces" when I was 13 an a new mall opened up in my town and a record store had it on sale for 2 bucks. I had 4 albums then, AC-DC "Back in Black", Rush "Permanent Waves", Pink Floyd "The Wall", and Kiss "Rock and Roll all Over" but the only one I listen to today is "Armed Forces". His first 5 albums were all great. High energy music with great hooks. After he went solo without The Attractions I lost interest gradually.
"Imperial Bedroom" is a near masterpiece (the record label had the audacity to label it as such). It did have great production.
Elvis Costello got older and fatter and still is a great composer but when he was coming up he was a hellion and one to watch and get excited about.
The Replacements WERE freakin' brilliant. Just shows what a doofus David Lee Roth was.
Actually, of all of Costello's records, "Armed Forces" is my all time favorite. It's absolutely great.
old tymer wrote:
The Replacements WERE freakin' brilliant. Just shows what a doofus David Lee Roth was.
Sorry: it was Bon Jovi who said that & was therefore a doofus.